West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-04-22
INDEX VS.. wATcHMAN.

The Monroe WGtchmdR made a
statement to the effect, that. at the
Summers Circuit Court, in 1885,
State Senator McCreery expressed
himself as being opposed to Mr..
Camden's reelection and that Subse-
quently McGraw, having, by the di-
rection of Mr.. Camden, appointed
McCreery's father Deputy Internal
Revenue Collector, the State Senator
became Mr.. Camden's advocate. The
Raleigh Iader (owned and edited
by Mr. McCreery) eOntradicts the
Watchmoa. In the IN deT of the 7th
Mr. McCreery said,
There was no such meeting in 1885
as the WatchmaR refers to. We
were not present at either the Febru-
airy or September term of the sum
mers Court and the gentlemen who
rive testimony for the Wdtchmna
will recollect that the case of Fowler
against Thompson was pending at
the Nav term and this circumstance
will refresh their memory 81 that
they will recOllect such conversation
did not occur at that term. They
doubtless have in their mind con
versatiOn which did occur at the
September term, 1884 On that Oc-
casion several gentlemen were dis
cussing the then political situation
and especially "Ring-rule' and the
manner ofmauipulatiug conventions;
particularly were they criJicising the
methods adopted by Mr. Faulkner 5
friends to secure his nomination at
the Wheeling convention. The sen
timcutS of all present were against
the practice. we believing the prin-
ciples subyerSiye of good govern
mcnt and detrimental To the party.
Our recollection is. and we feel GER
tain the gentlemen present will bear
Ms out i'm the declaration, that moth
inc was said by any one against Mr..
Camden Individually and he was
not discussed at all only in connec-
ton with those supposed to constI-
tute the Ring. Camden and keHna
never met us in our room. At the
MAY term we met these gentlemen
as they were leaving. We spoke to
them separately and were not en-
gagged in conversation but a few mo-
ments. We merely told them that
our father was IN applicant for =
position under Collector McGraw
and McGraw not being acquainted
with him we asked to refer McGraw
10 them as to his qualifications and
fitness for the Office. They both as
sented and said if McGraw inquired
of them they would take pleasure IA
doing 81. This was the Only con
vcrsation we ever had with them in
regard TO this matter
Responding toaa assertion by the
Wotedmou that McCreery hoaSted
that his nomination for the Senate
was a defeat of the Kenna-Camden
faction he says:
When we reached Logan {. IL.
(where the nominating convention
was held) we found Joseph Chiffon
and b. Ii. OHey working for c. W.
Campbell. Mr.. Watts and Mr. StOl-
ling were also present and we believe
that they were all opposed to us es-
pec:allv as we knew them to be
friends to Mr.. Keuua and in the past
we had opposed Kenna for Hereford,
and we naturally thought that his
influence was against US and when
asked if we did not think so we said
we did.
Having published (by request)
the article in the WGtcbmGa,it gives
Us pleasure, though we can ill-afford
the space. to coudense and print the
substance of the reply made by Mr..
McCreery. According to our con-
ception of the duty of a newspaper
any one who conceives himself plac-
cd in false position before the pub
lie IS entitled to the use of its col
umns so far as it may be necessary
O. set hi mself right: